It is known from official history that the Roman Empire was generous in building infrastructure in the conquered territories. They built aqueducts, bridges, tunnels and a network of roads:
Map of the location of roads in the Roman Empire and aqueducts in Europe. Compare the volume of construction. Even for hundreds of years.
Those. it can be said that resources were not pumped out of the occupied territories, slaves were not taken away, but on the contrary, they were developed with these gigantic construction projects.
Historians present to us the Mediterranean civilization as the conquering Roman Empire. Or maybe in fact, Rome was everywhere from the beginning? But this is a separate topic. I propose to see the details in the technology of building Roman roads:
Promotional video:
Multi-layer installation: rubble stone, crushed stone, sand and tiles with borders. It's all by hand, thousands of kilometers.
There are many such roads on rubble stone with sand and gravel dressing. An interesting example. Rome is covered with clay for 8 meters, and here only sod has formed above the road. Ancient Rome so ancient?
Roads covered with paving slabs were built within cities. And that's where the most interesting thing comes to light.
The first question is: how to navigate such irregularities? After 10-50 km, the wheels of the cart will fall off from the shaking. Here's a look at some more examples of Roman roads and imagine that you are driving along it in a cart, chariot:
If they cut down cobblestones for these roads, then they could cut down flatter edges, which are more or less suitable for comfortable movement on horse-drawn vehicles, and not just on horseback. It would be easier to leave the road just unpaved (but on a stone foundation). But then processed slabs are not needed - crushed stone and rubble stone are enough. On gravel it will be easier to move both on foot and on horseback than on such a cobblestone.
Of course, there are Roman roads with more or less smooth stone surfaces:
This is not the first time I return to the topic of Roman roads, and the thought never leaves me that a dense sandy layer was poured over these cobblestones, or sand with small stones and bitumen (ancient asphalt). This organic matter has collapsed over the years of the past hundreds of years, exposing stones. Without this final coating, Roman roads paved with stone, as I said above, are extremely inconvenient to move on carts and chariots.
Let's move on to the next observation, about which none of the historians speaks:
Strangeness is a rut in a stone pavement. There is no need for a drain on the road; rainwater flows out through the cracks, like in modern paving stones. This is exactly the indentation in the stone slabs. It seems that the stone was plastic like plasticine (or like concrete dough) and someone rode on a cart without waiting for the stones to gain strength. Is quite real. The Romans knew concrete and used it everywhere. It is possible that there were several types of concrete (recipes).
Moreover, historians know about these tracks. And they probably think that they were formed from the wear of stones by carts. But the fact is that the road does not wear out on such a narrow part, a narrow track is not formed. And the track is not along the entire length of the road - take a closer look. Selectively, the pavement could not wear out. And if the track was made on purpose, then why only on a limited section of the path?
The fact that the stone pavements of many Roman roads are concrete is also evidenced by this photo:
This is the excavated edge of a Roman road. I enlarged the photo and it shows that this is not a sawn block, but a molded one - there are traces of dents from the side curbs.
In general, these dents in Roman roads reminded me of stone ruts in mineral tuff in the Crimea, Chufut-Kale.
Further questions:
Historians call these stones - a pedestrian crossing across the road. It's not convenient for pedestrians! Why such a designation with tall stones? Maybe these are restraints for low carts? Could drive only on high wheels? Why then such selectivity?
Why this chute in the middle of the road? A drain? Usually I make them along the edges, and the roadbed is curved (arc profile). Water flows down to the edges to the gutter. And here he is in the middle. Some questions.
Well, and for the most complete scale, to cover more Roman building projects. Many Roman roads passed through these bridges that have survived to this day:
Let's talk about Roman tunnels for Roman roads separately.
Most likely, historians have their own superficial answers to these questions: this is how it was, how it was built, etc. But if you look at them more critically: is everything so simple?
Author: sibved